The Naked Gun: A Look into How Political Satire Lost its Literality

The term “PC” culture is one I don’t particularly care for, speaking purely on terms of personal preference. I just don’t see how the fact that hateful things are not acceptable anymore is someone a sign of “oversensitivity” or “the end of free speech as we know it”. That being said, I do think the world has become a bit more sensitive, at least to certain topics, in the last few decades. And nowhere is that better illustrated than in our comedy films.

This week I saw the first Naked Gun movie for the first time, and of course I immediately loved it. The timing, the masterful subversion of genre tropes, the over-the-top but still somehow restrained gross-out humor, and a beautifully deadpan performance by the late Leslie Nielsen all make for one fun romp. However, buried in the film’s mountain of wacky antics are elements, both subtle and in your face, that would simply not fly in the modern era.

The most obvious example comes in the very first scene of the movie. We open on the Israeli city of Beirut with a meeting between dictators and terrorist leaders plotting some grandiose attack on the American people, claiming that they can prove that America and its people are weaker than they claim to be. Then, our bumbling hero reveals himself, beating up his foes in a goofy yet wildly entertaining fight scene. Before he departs, he delivers a high-and-mighty warning to his enemies, stating that he “doesn’t want to see them anywhere in America”. He turns to make a grand exit, only to bump his head on the door.

Where do I even start with this? Well, for starters, all of the villains at the meeting are real life people. And I don’t mean thinly veiled stand-ins, I mean the real deal. Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, Russia’s Mikhail Gorbachev, and Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi all make an appearance. This serves to date the film in more ways than one.

I recently read The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright, a fascinating dive into the history of the rise of modern terrorism. At one point, Wright points out that there was once of time, prior to 9/11, where terrorism was considered more of a nuisance rather than a legit global threat. It existed back then, of course, but its presence on US soil was minimal, and to the public and our government it just seemed a million miles away.  

That sort of naiveté and arms-length attitude is reflected greatly in this scene. As threatening as these real life villains may seem at first, they can still be reduced to jokes with no sense of hesitation or social consciousness. They’re threats of being able to challenge American supremacy are not even remotely taken seriously, and they are simply toppled by a American agent, whom, by the way, is a dense, stumbling buffoon for about 80% of the movie.

We see real life issues depicted in goofy comedies even today, of course, but the execution is nowhere near as brazen as the Naked Gun. Take Zoolander for example. While its structure has a very similar storyline and wacky tone, it doesn’t come close to pushing the same number of buttons as the Naked Gun. The film has an extremely silly critique of the fashion industry, namely the exploitation of workers in the developing world, but never at any point shows us something that comes directly from the real world.

The main villain is a world-famous fashion mogul, but he is a work of fiction and his characteristics could be applied to ANY prominent member of the fashion industry. The dim-witted hero of this film’s story must save the prime minister of Malaysia from being assassinated as part of a conspiracy to continue exploiting workers, but the prime minister does not appear to be based on ANY real life figure. The real world issue is there, but it’s kept at arm’s length, resembling reality but only just.

The whole Reagan Era “America Fuck Yeah” element of Naked Gun is also still around, but it has also been tempered with. The two most obvious examples of this are, naturally, Team America: World Police and its sort-of-spiritual-successor-but-not-really The Interview. Naked Gun has a gung ho, take-no-prisoners and yet somehow apolitical feel to it, whereas the later films lack a good deal of that self-satisfaction and confidence in ourselves, giving us just the slightest hint of self-reflection.

As I stated above, Naked Gun is certainly a product of 1980s Cold War Americana, but lacks any sort of social or political critique. America’s foreign policy, issues of police or government corruption, the overreaching power of Big Money: all of these topics could potentially be read from the film, but they are never given even a sliver of analysis, much less parodied. Its parody is strong and often hysterical, but is solely aimed at the genre clichés of both 1980s action flicks and classic noir thrillers. It’s never directed at any part of American society or culture.

By contrast Team America and The Interview have a much more pronounced social consciousness. In the former, American foreign policy is shown as well-meaning but also carelessly destructive, and our obsession with celebrities nearly allows for the tyrannical Kim Jong-Il to take over the world. In the latter, our media is shown to be glitzy on the surface but hollow underneath, and our foreign policy is shown to be short-sighted, knocking down despots like Kim Jong-Un but doing nothing effective to replace them. Comedy has always been used to tackle uncomfortable and harsh topics, but now we feel like we need to examine and laugh at ourselves as much as we do others. Gone are the days where all we needed was for Leslie Nielsen to punch an Islamic radical in the groin…ah, the naiveté of youth.

In addition, this sort of brazen smearing of dictators is apparently much less welcomed by said dictators today than it has been in the past. As you may remember, North Korea was none too thrilled with the depiction of its leader, and the threats were taken so seriously that the film was temporarily pulled from release, only to be released on time after all with no ill effects. Just to put into context of how childish this was, Charlie Chaplin made a film in 1940 spoofing Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, titled The Great Dictator. According to records, Hitler, an avid cinema lover, ordered the film for his own personal viewing and apparently loved it so much that he ordered it a second time. So now we have proof that Kim Jong-Un is indeed worse than Hitler since at least the Fuhrer had a sense of humor!

The Naked Gun has been called a timeless classic, but there’s no denying it comes from a world that viewed itself in a much different light than our own. But it’s not the world-view that is the most dated part of the film. Funny enough, that honor belongs to the supporting role filled by none other than OJ Simpson. He was given a decent-sized supporting, comedic role—a role that expected viewers to laugh at him and sympathize with him during humorously over-the-top physical moments of torment…it was a different time. 

Written By: Zak Kizer

REVIEW: Sully (2016)

Timing is an essential part of storytelling. If released at just the right moment, a film can trigger a passionate response, either from the world or just one person. For the 2016’s film, Sully, I am that one person.

Sully tells the true story of airline Captain Chesley Sullenberger, “Sully” for short. In January 2009, Sully’s plane with 155 people on board lost both engines and had to make an emergency landing in the Hudson River. Miraculously, everyone on board survived, and Sully was justly heralded as a hero, despite all claims and accusations to the contrary.

The biggest asset to the film is its down-to-earth feel. Clint Eastwood’s films have always had a deglamorized realism to them, and that’s used to great effect here as it matches the protagonist perfectly. Sully isn’t some noble figure looking for a righteous cause, he’s just an everyday man caught it in a tumultuous situation. That grounded feeling is reflected in all aspects of the film, even the antagonists who are investigating him. They aren’t snobby or mean-spirited, they are just doing their jobs, and are approaching it from a different perspective than Sully himself.

Perspective is another key element to the film. We don’t actually see the crash as it happened until about half an hour into the movie. Before that, we see only newscasts about the crash, and Sully’s horrifying imaginations about how it could’ve gone so much worse. That’s a fantastically unique way of framing the situation, as it sets up the stakes and magnitude of Sully’s actions before we even see them, allowing for us to be more invested. 

When the crash does happen, we mostly see it from the view of the passengers and those who witnessed it from the outside, without going inside the cockpit too much. That aspect is saved for the climax in the courtroom, where Sully has to prove that his actions were indeed heroic and not an unnecessary risk that just happened to have fortuitous results. Setting up the full story as fragments, and even as sort of a twist, really allows for enough time to see Sully as a person, and not just as a romanticized hero.

And that leads me to the strongest aspect of the film, Tom Hanks as Sully. His performance, coupled with the impressive way in which the story is told, are outstanding. We really penetrate the mindset of someone who’s been through an accident like this, and that’s something that, unfortunately, I can relate. I’m going to go off on a bit of a tangent here, but it’s important I swear.

A few weeks ago, I was in a car accident. I was driving back to college, to finish moving in to my new apartment, so the car was loaded with luggage. It was a head-on collision with the rear of another car at roughly 60 miles an hour. The front of my car was smashed beyond repair, the surprisingly pink airbag went off right in front of my face, and the Buick insignia on the steering wheel left a recognizable cut on a forearm. I managed to stumble out of the car, and my vision went black for a few seconds. I had no reception, but another driver stopped to help and I was able to contact both the police and my family. The police took my statement, had my car hauled away, and took me to a gas station to wait for a ride from my parents.

They arrived soon enough, ditching work and suffering through an hour’s worth of standstill traffic to come and get me. Thankfully, I had suffered no damage other than some cuts and bruises, and we soon collected my luggage from my car. By the same stroke of luck, none of my belongings had been damaged either, aside from a few busted cans of Pepsi. Utterly afraid to drive on my own, my mother drove me the rest of the way to my apartment, and even went to the store for me before returning home. The next day, I shared pictures of my wrecked car online, and was met with the sympathies of most everyone I knew.

This is what makes this film really click with me. I’m no hero, I didn’t save anyone’s life, and I certainly haven’t flown a functioning plane, much less a damaged one (and after this I don’t think I’d want to). But I can see the same effects in Sully that were in me after my crash. That feeling of being in a situation, however brief, where its life and death, and then coming out virtually unscathed, is hard to articulate and even harder to convey. You almost feel like you shouldn’t have gotten through it, and then feel relieved that you did, but that relief is tampered by the fear of what could’ve been.

For me, that last part occurred when I thought back to a family gathering a few days before the crash. As I said goodbye to my cousin Danielle, she called me her “favorite cousin”. As I sat around recuperating, I couldn’t help but think to myself that that could’ve been the last thing we said to each other. To come that close but to come out all right is both a thankful and confusing sensation.

Hanks conveys this magnificently. At first, he’s almost shocked that he and the others made it, hesitating to leave the plane in fear of leaving behind survivors, in spite of the obvious fact that it’s empty. Then, he is elated by the discovery that every single passenger and crew member lived with only a few minor injuries, and Hanks really sells that this is one of the happiest moments of his life. The “flashbacks” we see of how the plane could’ve crashed might be a tad overdone, and I personally would’ve preferred that we only imagine what he thought that might’ve been like, but the dread on Hanks’ face when he conjures up these images more than makes up for it. 

In addition, I really admired how the film doesn’t try to impart some sappy, thoughtless message about how “things happen for a reason”, which I really, really can’t stand about 99% of the time! Every time I hear that phrase, I can’t help but think, “What reason?”

This film, thankfully, does not even remotely go there. Sully doesn’t search for any kind of life lesson in the accident; he doesn’t reevaluate his place in the world or anything. He is affected by the crash (who wouldn’t be?), but it’s simply him trying to come to terms with that trauma and move past it, which I find to be infinitely more relatable that some thoughtless attempt to find meaning in an event where there isn’t any to be found. In life, it’s often pointless to try and make sense of tragedies or potential tragedies, as most often they won’t make sense because they don’t, and this movie doesn’t shy away from that fact! Despite that, it still manages to have an uplifting feel, because as pointless as the tragedy may have been, Sully prevented it. Everyone on board survived the crash, and that’s the only thing that matters in situations like this.

In conclusion, I can relate to this film in a way I couldn’t have just a few months ago. It’s superbly directed and acted, and it encapsulates the trauma of surviving a potentially fatal accident unscathed perfectly. In other words, I can’t recommend this film highly enough! 

Review By: Zak Kizer

I'm Tired of Movies "Based On True Stories"

Hollywood exaggerates stories. Exaggeration is what sells. Clearly, this is the case when labeling films as “based on true events”, “inspired by actual event”, and the like. After researching films for this post, I learned you can label any movie as true.

For example, The Fourth Kind (2009), a movie marketed as not only being based on actual events, but showing real interviews and footage. The movie depicted alien abductions occurring in Nome, Alaska from the 1960s to 2000s and played interviews from the real victims alongside the dramatized version played by the actors in the movie. This sounds incredibly intriguing until you discover that those “real” videos and “real” victims were actually fake videos portrayed by actors, and extraterrestrial encounters had nothing to do with the Nome disappearances.

I ran across the same issues with The Visitant (2014), a film that I had hopes for considering it had won awards and was based off the events of its own executive producer. Most of her interview on the matter revolves around how the paranormal activity affected her daughter and dog, and how the ghost followed her home after working on The Queen Mary. When I watched the movie, it neglected to add any of these elements to the film, only including small occurrences, such as voices and odd electrical phenomenon, which could be attributed to any paranormal activity.

Lastly, in my quest to find a good true event horror film, I decided to watch The Quiet Ones (2014), a film based on The Philip experiment, which analyzed the possibility that paranormal activities were manmade, being produced from the negative energy given off by a person. The Quiet Ones kept that principle in the film, but then suddenly threw it out the window at the end, attributing the paranormal occurrences to a clairvoyant young girl. At this point, I stopped looking for more movies.

Aside from The Fourth Kind, The Visitant, and The Quiet Ones barely resembling the events in which they are supposed to be based, the liberties these movies took with their origins didn’t save the films from being terrible, in my opinion. None of them scared me even the slightest bit, which is saying something for a person like me who scares easily, and their plots were boring.  

I get why these movies are made. A scary movie becomes even scarier if you can believe it to happen in real life, so why not label as such. The problem is that I could do that for any movie. Every single movie in existence contains elements that have happened in someone else’s life. Nevertheless, does labeling a movie as being true really improve ticket sales or improve their story? Some of the highest grossing horror films contain plots not based on actual events, including The Others (2001), The Haunting (1999), The Ring (2002), and The Grudge (2004), just to name a few. These movies could have claimed inspiration from any number of real occurrences and stamped itself as a true story, but they don’t need to. On the other hand, films like The Fourth Kind appear to latch onto the true story brand to compensate for poor storytelling. All I can say is for these “true story” horror films, most of them need all the help they can get.

Review: Beasts of No Nation (2015)

On Friday October 16, 2015 Netflix released its first original film

Beasts of No Nation (2015) simultaneously on its streaming service as well as theaters. This is an important moment for both streaming services and cinemas, and it’s sadly been fairly overlooked by the public. Original TV shows by Netflix, Amazon and Hulu are already having major impacts on the future of how television works; now streaming services are challenging theaters. Most major theater chains have banned the movie because it violates their traditional 90 day exclusivity release rights, but the film has still been released in a few indie theaters across the country, which will ensure it will be in the award race. As Netflix has more original films being released down the road, and other streaming services have similar plans, this may be a watershed moment for the future of cinema. Now for my review:

The film is set in an unnamed African country and tells the story of a young boy named Agu (played brilliantly by newcomer Abraham Attah). A coup is held and the whole country falls into chaos. His mother and younger siblings flee, but Agu, his father and his brother are forced to stay behind. Soldiers of the new government soon attack the village and kill Agu’s father and brother and while Agu is fleeing, he is captured by rebel forces. The rebels are led by an enigmatic leader simply known as The Commandant played by Idris Elba. The Commandant submits Agu to a grueling training and slowly strips away at his innocence to turn him into a child soldier in his army.

Idris Elba has had an impressive career known for movies like Pacific Rim (2013) and Prometheus (2012) as well as for TV shows like The Wire and Luther, giving incredible performances in almost everything he does, but this is possibly his best performance to date. In most films like this The Commandant would be turned into a cruel man who forces his soldiers to do terrible things simply because he says so, but Elba makes him seem caring and portrays him as a father to his soldiers; they follow him not out of fear, but out of respect and love. Idris Elba always exudes this strong sense of power and he uses it well here. He stands out on the battlefield and, while everyone else ducks and flinches as bullets fly past him, he hardly moves--a bit reminiscent of Robert Duvall in Apocalypse Now (1979). His charisma is equal parts tender and cruel, which is what draws Agu and the other young soldiers to him. Equally brilliant is Abraham Attah as Agu, who does an incredibly convincing job of showing the development of his character as he is submitted to war, violence, murder, rape, sexual abuse, drugs and starvation. He goes from childlike innocence to murderous to disillusioned and yet is somehow still able to bring some hope to the story through a monologue at the end. This is the type of performance that would be near impossible for an experienced actor to pull off, which makes Attah’s performance that much more impressive.

Of course great performances are nothing without a good script and direction, and luckily Beasts of No Nation was written and directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga (Sin Nombre, Jane Eyre and the first season of True Detective) who finds a great balance of showing enough violence and horror to draw you in and help you understand the hell Agu is living in without taking it too far. Even in the few scenes where it seems violence is treated nonchalantly, I think it is attempting to show Agu’s disillusionment toward violence. The topic of child soldiers is an intense one; there aren’t many people who would be willing to take it on, and there are even less that could do it well, but Fukunaga took up the challenge and succeeded.

It’s an interesting choice by Netflix to release this as their first film as it’s not attempting to draw in the average viewer and it’s a pretty controversial subject. The movie has received a lot of flak for depicting Africa as a war zone filled with monstrous men, when in reality it is actually largely peaceful, which is an understandable complaint. I wish there were more films that showed the peaceful side of Africa, but at the same time I think it’s important to not forget that stuff like this is happening every day in some countries. The film isn’t trying to say men like this only come from Africa. Men like this have come from every country including America. They are bred out of anarchy and chaos and simply want to create more. They kill because they can and take everything for themselves. They have no nationality or creed. They are hardly even men anymore; they are beasts of no nation.

Review By: Ben Ritter

Rating: 4.5/5

REVIEW: Stage Fright (2014)

I cannot do scary movies. Given how often my hands seem to find themselves in front of my eyes, it could be argued that I’ve never watched a horror film all the way through. But alas, October is quickly approaching, and scary movies are an important part of Halloween, so a wuss like me is charged with the task of finding a “not so scary” scary movie, when we happen to find ourselves in the mood. So, find yourself in similar situation, my answer for you is the movie Stage Fright (2014).

The movie begins opening night of a play called, The Haunting of the Opera, and follows the play’s resurrection to a financially struggling summer theater camp. The two camp cooks, Camilla (Allie MacDonald) and Buddy (Douglas Smith), fall under the care of camp manager Roger McCall (Michael Lee Aday, also known as Meatloaf) and former flame of Buddy and Camilla’s mother. Their mother, played by Minnie Driver (Good Will Hunting), was the original lead actress during the play’s Broadway opening night, only to be stabbed to death in her dressing room by the Opera Ghost. Ten years later, the camp decides to do The Haunting of the Opera with a twist, prompting young Camilla to audition for the role that her mother once filled. The campers spend weeks preparing for the play only to have a brutal murder cast a shadow over opening night; however, the show must go on. As opening night begins, Camilla discovers more mutilated corpses of some of the campers, and unmasks the killer, all while the show is still going on. Camilla is finally able to stumble back into the play in its last scene and receives an enthusiastic applause, while covered in someone else’s blood.

Stage Fright falls somewhere in between fun campy horror film and pure ridiculousness. Much like the movie Scream (1996), a movie with common themes, Stage Fright incorporates some slashing, unorthodox killing, and a goofy looking masked villain with a thirst for revenge. Nevertheless, Stage Fright also brings some originality to the film. Given the setting of the movie, several choreographed musical numbers take place. The killer is even shown playing the guitar and singing at some points, which if I’m being honest, were the weirdest and sometimes the scariest portions of the movie.

My reason for watching Stage Fright was to find a movie that fit the horror genre that I could actually sit through without leaving the room out of fright. I was definitely able to do that during this movie, but there were still moments where I jumped in my seat, muttered “oh my God”, and diverted my eyes. I am not saying this is a good movie. However, the musical elements added a twist that I have never seen in a horror film, and it not only reminds you that Meatloaf is still alive, but that he can actually act decently well. If you are a hardcore scary movie lover, this movie won’t do it for you, and you will probably hate it. If you’re like me, this movie won’t make you piss yourself, which is all I really asked for. 

Review by: Morgan Fisher
Rating: 2.5/5

Quinn's Top 10 Favorite Films

I think it's pretty obvious that whatever your favorite movie is, it’s probably the movie that got you into cinema in the first place. Considering how much my number one pick played with my mind when I first saw it, I can definitely say that it’s responsible for me having the love and passion for cinema that I have today. Once you’ve found that one film, you find many others that get you to love the world of cinema even more, and Lord knows if I love something I can’t and won’t shut up about its praises!
So with that said, here are what I consider to be my favorite movies of all time:

10. The Dark Knight (2008)
This is the film that got me to love superhero films. The Dark Knight is also the film that proved for a lot of people, myself included, that superhero films can be serious and even tackle certain aspects of everyday life on par with other genres. I did get sick and tired when everyone decided to make every other superhero film dark and edgy, but as the original, The Dark Knight still ranks as one of the best.

9. The Avengers (2012)
But then of course you have the superhero movie that proved that even if a movie embraces the wackier side, it can still become a great film. Yes, The Dark Knight might have the better, gripping story, but The Avengers is just so much fun and knows what it's trying to be. 

8. Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
Did I mention I love superhero films? Because Guardians of the Galaxy made me cement it in my head that yes, this is a genre I love and want to stay. The cast and characters (barring Ronan) were great and got a laugh out of me. Not only that, it managed to take a stupid concept and make it funny AND emotional. I didn’t go in thinking I would tear up at certain moments, but the film was done so well that I could easily buy the more dramatic elements.

7. History of the World Pt. 1 (1981)
Out of all the Mel Brooks movies I’ve seen (which sadly I still have quite a few to go) History of the World Pt. 1 was my first and definitely one of my favorites. It helps that I’m into history and just appreciate how much Brooks messes with historical figures, events and places. The jokes are always spot-on, the timing is great, and honestly, The Inquisition scene is probably one of my favorite scenes in cinema. Taking an event like that, turning it into a giant musical number and making it hysterical takes talent.

6. Blazing Saddles (1974)
Blazing Saddles is without question probably the best film Mel Brooks ever made. The jokes and characters in this film are just so laugh-out-loud hysterical that I couldn’t help but laugh at almost every scene. Not only that, but the fact that Mel Brooks decided to break from Western conventions and actually cast a black actor as the main hero, something we’d never see again until a couple decades later is remarkable, especially given the time period it was made in.

5. Pacific Rim (2012) 
Guillermo del Toro’s foray into Kaiju movies is not only a great love letter to the genre, but also films in general. The cast and characters were all fantastic (especially Ron Perlman and Idris Elba), and the Jaeger vs. Kaiju fights were some of the best action scenes I’ve seen in film. Plus, it’s the film that introduced me to Mako Mori, a character I love dearly! Here’s a character who in almost any other film would’ve been a love interest or side character, but instead she got to be one of the big focus points of the film. Not only that, but she has her own great personality, gets to have scenes of badassery AND has her own great character arc. She’s what I consider the bar for great female characters in film, and I hope more films can try and pass the Mako Mori test in the future.

4. Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Are the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films campy as all get out? Yes, yes they are. Does that make them any less of films? No, no it doesn’t. Compared to some of the newer superhero films it’s not the best when it comes to story (and even sometimes acting) but it definitely still holds up in other regards. The characters start to develop more, Doc Ock is a very tragic and reluctant villain, and the fight scenes and choreography were great.

3. True Grit (2010) 
If there’s one thing I love about this movie, it’s that it takes the Western genre and flips it on its head. The brave renegade hero is a stumbling drunk, the lawful protector an in-over-his-head goof and the star of the film Maddie is just so deliciously cynical and vengeful. The theme of revenge in this film is so well done that you can’t help but feel for Maddie and all involved once it’s over. It’s the perfect combination of cynicism and slapdash.

2. Django Unchained (2012)
Tarantino has always been my favorite director. I consider him to be the person that got me to love cinema and all that it can be. And it comes as no surprise that when Django Unchained came out that not only was I going to see it, but also love it. The acting was great from all involved, the comedy/drama/suspense/thrills/etc. were fantastic and memorable and the action scenes were brutal but exciting.

1. Pulp Fiction (1994)
Not only is Tarantino my favorite director, but he’s also responsible for making my favorite film of all time. Every performance is great, the jokes and drama get me every time, the dialogue is some of the best I’ve heard in a film, and the philosophy and teachings of the film stick with me to this day.